Cannuscio v. Garfinkle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cannuscio v. Garfinkle

307 A.D.2d 1003, 763 N.Y.S.2d 513

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 20, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 1003 (Cannuscio v. Garfinkle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cannuscio v. Garfinkle, 307 A.D.2d 1003, 763 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating Vincent Cannuscio as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2003, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Supervisor of the Town of Southampton, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and validated the designating petition.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that service of process was proper pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (see Bossuk v Steinberg, 58 NY2d 916, 918 [1983]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating Vincent Cannuscio as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2003, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Supervisor of the Town of Southampton, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and validated the designating petition.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that service of process was proper pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (see Bossuk v Steinberg, 58 NY2d 916, 918 [1983]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 1003, 763 N.Y.S.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannuscio-v-garfinkle-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack